Could Heller possibly bring suit against Fenty and Lanier as INDIVIDUALS for violating his SCOTUS-recognized civil rights, and include a motion to prevent the DC government from footing their legal bills? If we somehow pulled that off ONCE it just might put the fear of G-d in the sonsabitches.
As someone pointed out on another blog, the last time a megalomaniacal petty tyrant defied the Supreme Court in such a brazen manner, soldiers and US Marshalls were called in.
"Predicating the right lawfully to possess a pistol as guaranteed by the Second Amendment on the payment of ANY fee, and moreso an undefined fee with no limit according to the arbitrary will of the Chief, infringes on the right of the people, including plaintiffs herein, to keep and bear arms." [Emphasis Added]
I believe that this is a FAR bigger case than anyone now suspects. As emphasized above (by me), this case is going after fees - ALL fees - charged for the "privilege" (as viewed by the Fenty/Daley/Sarah Brady types) of keeping a firearm (which is actually a "RIGHT" as the Supreme Court recently stated).
I believe that there will be a monumental decision by the Court, backed up by the 1943 Murdoch v. Pennsylvania decision (see http://nesara.org/court_summaries/mu...nnsylvania.htm ), which stated words to the effect that a
"license tax was, “a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution. Thus, it may not exact a license tax for the privilege of carrying on interstate commerce, although it may tax the property used in, or the income derived from, that commerce, so long as those taxes are not discriminatory… The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down."
IOW, I believe that after this case is resolved, you'll not have any license fees (other than perhaps rather nominal expense-reimbursement type fees) to purchase, continue to own or to carry firearms. We may even be able to say goodbye to the 1934 NFA fee of $200 per full auto!!
BTW, note that Murdoch applied against Pennsylvania. Well, OK, the 1st had by then been at least partially incorporated. The 2nd may well be incorporated by the time this case is decided (maybe just a few days, weeks or months beforehand), or this case may (in conjunction with Heller's strong individual rights language) incorporate the 2nd all by itself.
"The D.C. Council passed emergency legislation July 15 in an effort to comply with the court's ruling."
BS! - DC and Fenty have no intention of attempting to "comply with the court's ruling". They're just trying to figure out ways to get around the ruling.
And if they drag this out enough into an Obama Administration who has named a bunch of new judges/justices...
It's not as though we could really do anything, seeing as how our betters have decided that the regular readers around here are nothing more than Internet blowhards. III
President Eisenhower's mother hated nicknames. So even though she wanted to name her son David, she didn't want him called Dave or Davey, so she picked as his first name Dwight because she could conjure no permutation of it that would lend itself a nickname.
Ironically his last name was shortened and familiarized to "Ike", as we all know and to the chagrin of his mother.
Apropos of nothing at all,except I thought you might find it interesting, David.
The U.S. House of Representatives yesterday sat in the middle of Washington, this bastion of tyranny, and formally apologized to Americans of African descent for slavery and the racist "Jim Crow" laws (abolished in the late 1960s). (A staff member of Martin Luther King Jr. admitted that an apology was nice, but reparations money would be better.) They're all over the task of making things right with people dead 200 years or now old and gray. What about OUR CHILDREN and GRANDCHILDREN? Our chains are not visible or tangible, but many others than blacks are bound by them now, and more chains to come. All these legal citations and the incorporation stuff makes me dizzy. I thought the Constitution and BoR were good to go as soon as they were ratified by the states that existed in 1789-91. I think when we play by the weasels' rules, we're sure to lose. It would be nice to see this controversy end in our lifetimes. Some people have lived their entire lives under this travesty.
Paul W quoted the following: - "Predicating the right lawfully to possess a pistol as guaranteed by the Second Amendment on the payment of ANY fee, and moreso an undefined fee with no limit according to the arbitrary will of the Chief, infringes on the right of the people, including plaintiffs herein, to keep and bear arms."
Combine that with the Miller decision which although reportedly an anti-Second Amendment decision nevertheless did hold that essentially any weapon suitable for use by an individual US infantryman was also suitable for use by the citizen militia, and therefore could not be licensed or taxed per se...
...and what do you get?
You get a CLEAR precedent for repealing the NFA34 and most likely the GCA68 and the current ban on manufacturing select fire weapons, and probably a repeal of the 'dealer sample/LEO only' category of select-fire firearms.
Jail time and revocation of their citizenship... at the very least.
ReplyDelete... D.C. City council.
ReplyDeleteHeh.
Fuck 'em.
Maybe this one will have real ramifications.
Could Heller possibly bring suit against Fenty and Lanier as INDIVIDUALS for violating his SCOTUS-recognized civil rights, and include a motion to prevent the DC government from footing their legal bills? If we somehow pulled that off ONCE it just might put the fear of G-d in the sonsabitches.
ReplyDeleteAs someone pointed out on another blog, the last time a megalomaniacal petty tyrant defied the Supreme Court in such a brazen manner, soldiers and US Marshalls were called in.
Really, who didn't see this coming?
ReplyDelete(p.s. Dave - Linked to from my blog, but the link's not showing on the "Links to this post" page.)
"Predicating the right lawfully to possess a pistol as guaranteed by the Second Amendment on the payment of ANY fee, and moreso an undefined fee with no limit according to the arbitrary will of the Chief, infringes on the right of the people, including plaintiffs herein, to keep and bear arms." [Emphasis Added]
ReplyDeleteI believe that this is a FAR bigger case than anyone now suspects. As emphasized above (by me), this case is going after fees - ALL fees - charged for the "privilege" (as viewed by the Fenty/Daley/Sarah Brady types) of keeping a firearm (which is actually a "RIGHT" as the Supreme Court recently stated).
I believe that there will be a monumental decision by the Court, backed up by the 1943 Murdoch v. Pennsylvania decision (see http://nesara.org/court_summaries/mu...nnsylvania.htm ), which stated words to the effect that a
"license tax was, “a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution. Thus, it may not exact a license tax for the privilege of carrying on interstate commerce, although it may tax the property used in, or the income derived from, that commerce, so long as those taxes are not discriminatory… The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down."
IOW, I believe that after this case is resolved, you'll not have any license fees (other than perhaps rather nominal expense-reimbursement type fees) to purchase, continue to own or to carry firearms. We may even be able to say goodbye to the 1934 NFA fee of $200 per full auto!!
BTW, note that Murdoch applied against Pennsylvania. Well, OK, the 1st had by then been at least partially incorporated. The 2nd may well be incorporated by the time this case is decided (maybe just a few days, weeks or months beforehand), or this case may (in conjunction with Heller's strong individual rights language) incorporate the 2nd all by itself.
As I said, this case will be MONUMENTAL!
How about prison time for conspiracy to deny civil rights? Where is the U.S. Attorney?
ReplyDeleteWho's "Dave"?
ReplyDelete"The D.C. Council passed emergency legislation July 15 in an effort to comply with the court's ruling."
ReplyDeleteBS! - DC and Fenty have no intention of attempting to "comply with the court's ruling". They're just trying to figure out ways to get around the ruling.
It's not ignorance, it's arrogance.
What is the scope of 18 USC 242? Does it apply only to federal officials, or state & local as well?
ReplyDelete"Huborn:" marked by stubborn hubris. Applies pretty well here.
And if they drag this out enough into an Obama Administration who has named a bunch of new judges/justices...
ReplyDeleteIt's not as though we could really do anything, seeing as how our betters have decided that the regular readers around here are nothing more than Internet blowhards.
III
David:
ReplyDeleteMy apologies, I did not realize you don't like being called "Dave". Every David I know is actually the opposite, so it never crossed my mind.
President Eisenhower's mother hated nicknames. So even though she wanted to name her son David, she didn't want him called Dave or Davey, so she picked as his first name Dwight because she could conjure no permutation of it that would lend itself a nickname.
ReplyDeleteIronically his last name was shortened and familiarized to "Ike", as we all know and to the chagrin of his mother.
Apropos of nothing at all,except I thought you might find it interesting, David.
The U.S. House of Representatives yesterday sat in the middle of Washington, this bastion of tyranny, and formally apologized to Americans of African descent for slavery and the racist "Jim Crow" laws (abolished in the late 1960s).
ReplyDelete(A staff member of Martin Luther King Jr. admitted that an apology was nice, but reparations money would be better.)
They're all over the task of making things right with people dead 200 years or now old and gray. What about OUR CHILDREN and GRANDCHILDREN? Our chains are not visible or tangible, but many others than blacks are bound by them now, and more chains to come.
All these legal citations and the incorporation stuff makes me dizzy. I thought the Constitution and BoR were good to go as soon as they were ratified by the states that existed in 1789-91.
I think when we play by the weasels' rules, we're sure to lose. It would be nice to see this controversy end in our lifetimes. Some people have lived their entire lives under this travesty.
Revolvers v Pistoles
ReplyDeleteThis sounds like: bolt action v semi auto
Duh!
Paul W quoted the following: - "Predicating the right lawfully to possess a pistol as guaranteed by the Second Amendment on the payment of ANY fee, and moreso an undefined fee with no limit according to the arbitrary will of the Chief, infringes on the right of the people, including plaintiffs herein, to keep and bear arms."
ReplyDeleteCombine that with the Miller decision which although reportedly an anti-Second Amendment decision nevertheless did hold that essentially any weapon suitable for use by an individual US infantryman was also suitable for use by the citizen militia, and therefore could not be licensed or taxed per se...
...and what do you get?
You get a CLEAR precedent for repealing the NFA34 and most likely the GCA68 and the current ban on manufacturing select fire weapons, and probably a repeal of the 'dealer sample/LEO only' category of select-fire firearms.
Sounds good to me.